[linux-elitists] Fwd: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new

mwmiller@columbus.rr.com mwmiller@columbus.rr.com
Wed Oct 16 17:58:44 PDT 2002

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:34:10PM -0700, Rick Moen
<rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> ... Dig the [Bitkeeper licence] text out of bkhelp.txt.  I've done the
> latter and posted the current texts here:
> http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/apps/bitkeeper-3.0-x86-glibc2.2-linux-bkcl-licence
> http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/apps/bitkeeper-3.0-x86-glibc2.2-linux-bkl-licence
> Also in that directory are the licence text of many other popular
> proprietary applications for Linux. ...  My aim is clarity:  If people
> wish to consider consenting to proprietary icence terms, that's their
> affair, but I'm willing to go to at least a modest amount of effort to
> help them make an informed decision.

Speaking of pre-license information: If you know a GZIP when you see
one, you can easily install realplay (ugh) without going through the
self-extracter.  Now, I'm sure realplay (yuck)'s license includes
wording to the effect of "Usage of this software indicates agreement to
this license"-- I don't know for sure since I didn't see it-- but I'm
wondering just how binding the obligatory EULA for realplay (bleah) is
without the almost-obligatory "I ACCEPT, ALL MY BASE ARE BELONG TO YOU"
button-push. Anyone care to guess?
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmiller@columbus.rr.com

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list